UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Patrick KING, Defendant-Appellant.
Decided: December 07, 2020
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Adam Alexander, Stephen Corso, Bryan Wilson, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Anchorage, AK, for Plaintiff - Appellee Gretchen L. Staft, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Daniel F. Poulson, Federal Public Defender's Agency, Anchorage, AK, for Defendant - Appellant William Patrick King, Pro Se
William Patrick King appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 420-month sentence for sexual exploitation of a child, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), King's counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided King the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
King waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss the appeal. See id. at 988.
We remand, however, for the district court to consider striking from the judgment the potentially erroneous reference to 18 U.S.C. § 2260A, which may be inconsistent with the plea agreement.
Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
DISMISSED; REMANDED with instructions.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.